The Instigator
Gdougie
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jkgraves735
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
jkgraves735
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 88103
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Gdougie

Con

Typical abortion debate. I will be arguing that abortion is wrong and should be illegal in every circumstance. I will be using all types of references.

First round is acceptance.
jkgraves735

Pro

I accept and look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Gdougie

Con

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus. This definition contains the word "survive". This suggests that a fetus or embryo is living while inside the uterus. By taking out this fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus, it ends the babies life.

We are the United States of America. Why are we allowing murderous organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, to kill our next generation without giving them a chance. The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are entitled life in the United States. That means anything that is living, including a fetus or embryo, is also entitled life. We as a country need to realize that we are murdering our next generation without giving them a chance.

The question then arises, how can you tell if the babies life begins at conception (or as a fetus or embryo)? The answer is simple, how can you tell that it is or is not? Why are we gambling with innocent lives. Why are we turning our heads as organizations kill innocent babies who will never see the light of God's earth. In the Bible, life is given when the Lord breathes the breath of life into our body.

"So breath is life, and when life is breathed into the earthen vessel that is a human body, it comes alive." -Genesis 2:7

Just to be clear, I do believe life begins at conception as well as when God breathes the breath of life into our bodies.

So how can we prove or disprove that life begins at conception? I think we should stop gambling with the life of innocent babies, and stop abortion all together. Abortion, not matter what circumstance, is murder. I have attached a link below that gives evidence that life does begin at conception.

https://www.princeton.edu......

I look forward to my opponent's response, and can not wait for a good debate. Thank you.

jkgraves735

Pro

Hello, and welcome to this debate. I will be going through a rebuttal of his points, providing my own position along the way

1. Living vs. Person

My opponent states, as is obviously correct from a basic understanding of biology, that a fetus is, in fact, alive. However, an organism that is simply living is not a human being. This is a distinction that needs to be made. My opponent assumes that life is the sole indicator of moral and human rights. It is from this that he tries to apply the Declaration of Independence to the fetus. He also calls Planned Parenthood "murderous" for killing life yet does not give the basis that the loss of life in a fetus is any more important than that of an animal. He needs to define why a fetus is a person before making claims of "murder"

So, let's look at abortion when it actually occurs.

89% of abortions occur before the 12th week of pregnancy. So what does a fetus look like at 7 weeks, about halfway between conception and the twelfth week?

1. The fetus is about 1/2 an inch long, about the size of a small blueberry.

2. The skin is barely formed, making it translucent.

3. The brain and other organs are not yet formed.

4. There is no consciousness or other signs of humanity in the child at this point or any point in the near future.

I think it is plain to see my opponent has some explaining to do before saying that this blob of flesh has the same rights as everyone else.


2. Abortion in the Bible.

My opponent seems to think that the Bible supports an anti-choice stance, and yet neglects ALL the verses in the Bible that mention the death of a fetus in the womb. He also uses Genesis 2:7 out of the context of the rest of the passage, being creation, to try to make it apply as a standard to abortion. Poor exegesis.

Here is verse on accidental with an explanation:

Exodus 21:22-23

"Now when men struggle with each other and hurt a woman who has conceived, and her child goes out of her, but no harm continues on the woman, the man who hit her will give to the husband, and the judges will impose on him what to pay, but any harm follows her, then you shall give life for life"

In this passage, the baby's life is worth... a fine. It's not life for life. It's fetus for money, but if the mother dies... then there is execution. The Bible clearly says that the fetus is not human or worth the equivalent of a human life.


I look forward to my opponent' response


Sources:
http://www.babycentre.co.uk...
http://www.guttmacher.org...

Exodus 21 was my own translation from the Masoretic Text
Debate Round No. 2
Gdougie

Con

Thank you pro for continuing this debate.

I will now rebuttal arguments made my pro, and provide some of my own arguments as well.

**************************************************************************************************************

1. A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING

(Ia) Pro has indeed agreed that a fetus is alive. However, pro explains that just because something is alive does not make it human. What an interesting remark. I would like to show the voters a source that my opponent cited in their round 2 argument, which describes what the fetus looks like and consists of during the 8th week of pregnancy:

"This week, many changes take place in your baby, who now measures about 1.6cm. His embryonic tail is just about gone, and all his organs, muscles and nerves are beginning to function. In his brain, nerve cells are branching out to connect with one another, forming primitive neural pathways. Your baby's hands now bend at the wrist, and his feet are starting to lose their webbed appearance. His eyelids cover more of his eyes and tastebuds are forming on his tongue." (A)

My opponent asks me to define why a fetus is a person before I make the claim abortion is murder. The answer to my opponents question can be found in source they posted. You will not that while describing the 8 week fetus, my opponents source uses pronouns and words such as "who", "his", and "baby". Now my opponent might try to argue that this source is referring to the baby as a mother would talk about a fetus in her womb; however, in the context of the source, the source is referring to the fetus as a person. You would never use pronouns such as "his" to refer to a person (or fetus) who is not a human being or animal. A more appropriate term for something that was not a human being would be "it", something that was not living or a human being/animal.

(Ib) I find it interesting that my opponent notes a fetus as a "blob of flesh". This living "blob of flesh", who might I add is a human being just as you and I, is just as much a person as we are. Not a fully developed person, but still a person. I might add that we as human beings the day we are born are still developing! Why are we classified as a human being when we are born (while still developing to an adult), but not classified as a human being when a fetus is developing?

In some long explanations, I answered my opponents following arguments:

-"He needs to define why a fetus is a person before making claims of "murder""

-"I think it is plain to see my opponent has some explaining to do before saying that this blob of flesh has the same rights as everyone else."

I defined that a fetus is a person in (Ia), using a source my opponent already provided. I explained, in (Ib), that a "blob of flesh", which my opponent refers to as a human being/fetus, does in fact posses the same rights as any human being because they are in fact a living, developing human being just like you and I. It is that simple.

**************************************************************************************************************
2. ABOTION IN THE BIBLE

My opponent calls me a exegesis, very interesting considering the verse described (Exodus 21:22-23) by my opponent is not an example of abortion. In fact, nowhere in the Bible is the topic of abortion even mentioned. Although, there are some verses that can be applied to the science of abortion today. Here is a passage that explains what I have mentioned:

"There is a small but influential circle of prochoice advocates who claim to base their beliefs on the Bible. They maintain that “nowhere does the Bible prohibit abortion.” [1] Yet the Bible clearly prohibits the killing of innocent people (Exodus 20:13). All that is necessary to prove a biblical prohibition of abortion is to demonstrate that the Bible considers the unborn to be human beings." (B)

To my opponents remark that Genesis 2:7 has no relevance to the topic of life, I must disagree and provide a qualified argument from the Huffington Post:

"The Bible doesn't talk about abortion, but it does say when a human being's life begins. Genesis 2:7 is clearest. The first human became a “living being” (nefesh hayah, “a living breath”) when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breathe." (C)

So my opponent is wrong when arguing that Exodus 21:22-23 is an example of abortion. Because, as stated previously, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere. However, verses regarding abortion and murder are given that support abortion is murder, and that life starts as soon as God breathes that breath of life into our earthly vessel.

**************************************************************************************************************
I appreciate my opponent debating this topic, and look forward to their response. Thank you.

**************************************************************************************************************

(A)http://www.babycentre.co.uk...
(B)http://www.christiananswers.net...
(C)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
jkgraves735

Pro

It would seem to that my opponent has missed my arguments:

Instead of providing a reasoned philosophical defense of the humanity and personhood of a fetus, he simply quoted the language one of my sources used, which happened to be a parenting website. If a parent wants to call its offspring a "child," good for them, that's their choice, and a parenting website would reflect that.

Until my opponent gives a reason response to why a kidney bean sized piece of tissue has rights overriding the right to a female's autonomy, my argument stand.

The same goes for my rebuttal of his Bible argument. My point in Exodus was that YHWH apparently values the unborn fetus as less than human. Instead of life for life, there is fetus for money. As for Genesis 2, this passage states that ADULT humans are made in the image of God, say nothing of a zygote.

And beyond that, the Bible is not evidence for much by itself.

Until my opponent resolves these issues, my arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 3
Gdougie

Con

I appreciate my opponents response.

My opponent often feels the need to notify me that I have some explaining to do based on the arguments I provide. Well, it's time for my opponent to start explaining himself.

*********************************************************************************************************
My opponent asked me to prove that a fetus is in fact a human being, which would qualify abortion as murder. As my opponent pointed out, I used his own source to provide sufficient information.

However, he failed to point out the argument I made which suggested that a fetus is a human being because it is developing, just as he and I are still developing. So I appreciate my opponent still trying to argue that a fetus is not a human being, but he failed to rebuttal my arguments that a fetus is a human being because it is developing; therefore, have the same rights as any human being. Please refer to my (Ib) round 3 argument.

In regards to my opponents remarks on my (Ia) round 3 argument, I have to point out that I predicted what my opponent was going to argue and answered it:

"Now my opponent might try to argue that this source is referring to the baby as a mother would talk about a fetus in her womb; however, in the context of the source, the source is referring to the fetus as a person. You would never use pronouns such as "his" to refer to a person (or fetus) who is not a human being or animal. A more appropriate term for something that was not a human being would be "it", something that was not living or a human being/animal."

The cite my opponent used was indeed a parenting website, but a mother carrying a baby did not right the source. My opponent stated:

"If a parent wants to call its offspring a "child," good for them, that's their choice, and a parenting website would reflect that."

He is right, if a parent wants to refer to their fetus as a "child" they can do that. But if I am correct a mother carrying a baby did not write that article. It was someone informing a mother what their fetus (a living human being) looked like at 8 weeks of pregnancy.

My opponent of has some explaining to do to why he did not rebuttal ALL of my arguments made that a fetus is a human being.

*********************************************************************************************************
Once again my opponent has some explaining to do, regarding his Bible argument. My opponent stated in his round 2 argument:

"Here is verse on accidental with an explanation:" (I believe the word accidental is supposed to be abortion)

My opponent followed that statement with Exodus 21:22-23. Now, in my opponents round 3 rebuttal he stated:

"My point in Exodus was that YHWH apparently values the unborn fetus as less than human."

So, I ask my opponent why he did not explain in round 3 this was classified as abortion. My opponent also stated that the Bible, other than the verses he and I stated (Exodus 21:22-33, the verse my opponent used, is not even about abortion), is not much evidence for much by itself. He is correct, because the Bible does not talk about abortion at all, it talks about life and creation which leads me to my next argument/rebuttal.

My opponent is correct, in Genesis 2:7 God does bring to life an adult male (Adam), and later brings to life an adult female (Eve). But the point is that is when we become alive, for any person. Obviously for Adam and Eve, the first human beings, we're adults, it would be impossible for them to live as children. That's why God created them as adults. But as I noted as one of my round 3 arguments, life begins when God breathes the breath of life into our bodies.

"So breath is life, and when life is breathed into the earthen vessel that is a human body, it comes alive." -Genesis 2:7

In nowhere of this verse does it say it applies to one person. In fact, it literally describes when we are first alive.

*********************************************************************************************************
I have answered every question or argument my opponent has given, no matter what they proclaim. I encourage them to rebuttal accordingly.

I await my opponents response. Thank you.
jkgraves735

Pro

Damn Gdougie, back at it again with the unbacked claims of personhood.

But I digress.

My opponent has the burden of proof when claiming a fetus is a sentient human being with the same rights as us. Otherwise, it is the job of every person to argue against the personhood of every organism qualified as life: ants, weeds, jelly fish, birds, etc. All of these creatures are not personds, although they are alive.

In Round 3, he stated:

"Now my opponent might try to argue that this source is referring to the baby as a mother would talk about a fetus in her womb; however, in the context of the source, the source is referring to the fetus as a person. You would never use pronouns such as "his" to refer to a person (or fetus) who is not a human being or animal. A more appropriate term for something that was not a human being would be "it", something that was not living or a human being/animal."

And again, I will give a response since he more referred back to his previous round

The source is a parenting article. It is not a philosophical argument for the personhood of a fetus. I was using it simply as an easy to read depiction of a fetus' growth state

My opponent's argument is basically that a parenting website's article's language aimed at parents is grounds for declaring personhood for a fetus.

Secondly, my opponent simply says that a child's development makes it a person.

Why? Why is that? And growth in what way? It is not a person before it starts to grow? Only when it splits into a two-cell creature? Is it not a person in between growth stages? Is a senior citizen not a person when he begins to break down, the opposite of developing? Why not another definition? I could just as easily say you're only human if you are growing in a specific way (such as your toe length.

In fact, that is my argument. I am arguing that a fetus has no personhood rights before it is capable of actual sentience, which, as in the case with most abortions, the fetus is not capable of that.

************************************

Now, as to the Biblical argument, my opponent again seems to have missed the point.

"Here is verse on accidental with an explanation:" (I believe the word accidental is supposed to be abortion)"

My apologies on the typo, I wrote that on my phone. That passage is about a miscarriage caused by purposeful negligence. I was going to say accidental abortion: the aim was not necessarily to kill the child.

My argument was that the law clearly states that murder must be punished with execution (life for life)

And yet, when the fetus dies, a fine is paid. In fact, YHWH must not see a fetus as human, or this verse would call for execution. Instead, there is a fine.

In Genesis 2:7, the "breath of life" makes someone human. However, it, again, is applied to adults. It does not specifiy when it occurs in offspring... which is a large portion of this debate.
Now my opponent might try to argue that this source is referring to the baby as a mother would talk about a fetus in her womb; however, in the context of the source, the source is referring to the fetus as a person. You would never use pronouns such as "his" to refer to a person (or fetus) who is not a human being or animal. A more appropriate term for something that was not a human being would be "it", something that was not living or a human being/animal.
Debate Round No. 4
Gdougie

Con

I appreciate my opponent debating this topic, and his determination to win over voters.

My opponent raises no new arguments, as he constantly is trying to defend claims that he has previously made.

****
Let me first of all address my opponents remark:

"Otherwise, it is the job of every person to argue against the personhood of every organism qualified as life: ants, weeds, jelly fish, birds, etc. All of these creatures are not persons, although they are alive."

I believe that this debate was over people, I am not sure how the creatures tie into living human beings. I see where my opponent is headed though, he is trying to explain that even though something is alive does not make it a human being. However, we are still talking about a fetus in a mother's womb. We aren't talking about a plant, insect, lions, tigers, or bears. This fetus will turn into a human being eventually (unless aborted obviously, tragically).

My opponent seems to want evidence I cannot produce and neither can he. He has called a fetus a "blob of flesh". If he would like to explain to the voters when he classifies a unborn baby as a human being I challenge him to do that. I have given morally supported evidence that these unborn fetuses are not just flesh, they are living humans. Therefore, the killing of these humans is considered murder.

Once again, I challenge my opponent to explain to me when a "human is a human" as I have already done.

In regards to my opponents incompetent remarks on developing. I applaud him for trying to come back and argue against the point about fetuses developing just as we are. He did it poorly.

I hope my opponent is smart enough to realize that we are developing from the time we are conceived until we die. I also hope he is smart enough to realize that we remain human beings our entire life. There isn't much argumentation there, other than my opponents intellectual capacity and his attempt at destroying my argument with an insufficient rebuttal.

****
My point was, regarding the Exodus 21:22-23, that my opponent stated this was an example of accidental abortion when it is clearly not. And when my opponent explains that the fetus is just worth a fine, that is all from the Old Testament. The Old Testament (besides such stories as the creation story, Noah, Jonah, etc.), is full of old Jewish law that was eradicated by Jesus and the New Testament. So Exodus 21:22-23 clearly has no input on abortion or fetuses.

Let me remind my opponent one more time, as he has seemed to misread Genesis 2:7 over and over again, what Genesis 2:7 actually says:

"So breath is life, and when life is breathed into the earthen vessel that is a human body, it comes alive." -Genesis 2:7

Nowhere does this verse say it only applies to adults. In the context of the creation story, yes, it applies to adults. However, once again, this does not say it only applies to ADULTS.

****
CLOSING STATMENT

I would like to address the voters. My opponent has provided a great debate over this topic, lots of interesting things were discussed. I appreciate my opponent using the Bible as a source, and allowing for debate over specific verses. It shows that he is a Christian.

I would like to remind the voters that I answered every argument thoroughly, and just as my opponent asked.

Thank you to my opponent for participating.
jkgraves735

Pro

I'll just finish this up since I don't have much else to say and my points really weren't addressed that well.

My opponents points were essentially as follows:

1) "a fetus is a human being because it is developing"
Again, why? What I tried to say before, but will reiterate, is that many other organisms are alive and develop, but they aren't human beings with personhood rights that override those of the mother.

2) The Bible says so...

First, I showed that Exodus shows YHWH commanded that a murder must be responded to with execution... and yet YHWH commands that the death of a fetus is punished with... a fine? Not execution? This clearly shows the Exodus law, supposedly given by God, values a fetus as less than life. Second, Genesis 2:7 is specifically talking about just Adam and adults. My opponent gave me no reason for why this origins myth is grounds for overriding autonomy rights of the mother, or why it proves a peanut sized piece of protein is human.

Overall, my opponent thinks you can force a 11-year-old girl raped consistently by her uncle must bear his child. Sickening.

Why? Because a peanut sized organism could possibly, maybe, be a person... but he provided no good philosophical evidence of it.



*****************************************************************************************************



*Woof* lemme get out of character. Despite my arguments, lemme say I've been Devil's Advocate the whole time. I've been a Pro-Life activist for years in pretty harsh and occasionally dangerous environments.

I'd encourage my opponent to improve his arguments. If you really want to be a pro-life activist, work on it. If another pro-lifer can tear apart your arguments, think of what a real Pro-Choice advocate could do.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jkgraves735 8 months ago
jkgraves735
Can we discuss your arguments more now? Iron sharpens iron.
Posted by Gdougie 8 months ago
Gdougie
Once again, please do not lecture me on my arguments, as the debate has not been decided... You have demonstrated nowhere that you are pro-life. So, if you would like to lecture me about my positions once you win, feel free. But just be aware, I am a pro-lifer and I am defending unborn children and their mother. If you are trying to hurt your own pro-life movement (if you even are pro-life), you are doing a very good job. Why don't you start defending what you actually believe and stop spreading pro-choice lies on debates. Thank you.
Posted by jkgraves735 8 months ago
jkgraves735
Gdougie, please. Forget the debate real quick. This debate was sad and a bad representation of the Pro-life position. I have been doing this in many arenas for a long time, and this simply does not work. Please, for the sake of the kids, improve your arguments.
Posted by Gdougie 8 months ago
Gdougie
Until you win jkgraves735, do not lecture me about my arguments.
Posted by jkgraves735 8 months ago
jkgraves735
Gdougie. This will probably end in a tie unless someone votes. From one Pro-lifer to another... just please get better with your arguments.
Posted by Gdougie 8 months ago
Gdougie
Thank you to for the encouraging words, BUT THEY ARE NOT NEEDED!!! As you can see, this debate has not been decided yet. Thank you.
Posted by J_Bob798 8 months ago
J_Bob798
Seriously, that reveal at the end... I was hanging my head till the end, when I hung my head a little bit less. I am pro-life, and I completely agree with the conclusion made by jkgraves (out of character) at the end of the 5th round.

To Gdougie: please, please, please, do not be discouraged by this interaction. Take this debate as a challenge. Be challenged to seek and understand truth. Be challenged to understand what the World proclaims and why it is false. Be challenged to improve your rhetorical skills. Be challenged by the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:5. "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." You are not wrong, but you must learn to properly define why you are right.

Soli Deo Gloria
-J_Bob798
Posted by TDE1991 8 months ago
TDE1991
The debate was already taken, however in your first substantial argument you already brought out the bible as a tool. The bible provides absolutely no actual evidence that could be used in this argument aside from personal belief. You really should have went after other evidence based through science.
Posted by BlessedPaim 8 months ago
BlessedPaim
Good luck on your debate. I am a powerful debater but i fear i might not know as much as i need to.

I wont take it because i am scared a86;
Posted by Cooldudebro 8 months ago
Cooldudebro
You, go! Good to see another conservative!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by StatsAndFacts 8 months ago
StatsAndFacts
Gdougiejkgraves735Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not fully address arguments made by Pro, and arguments were unsound. Props to Pro - had no idea you were Pro-Life the whole time.